A Border Will Will Save Taxpayers Billions

Betsy McCaughey posted an article at Townhall today about the cost of not having a border wall.

The article reports:

Look what it costs us when a Central American teen crosses the border illegally without an adult. Uncle Sam spends a staggering $775 per day for each child housed at a shelter near Florida’s Homestead Air Reserve Base. There they have access to medical care, school and recreation. They stay, on average, 67 days at the Homestead shelter before being released to a sponsor. Do the math. That’s almost $52,000 per child. American parents would appreciate the government spending that money on their kids. Imagine the government handing you a check for $52,000 for your teenager.

However, there are bigger costs ahead. The number of illegal border crossers just hit an 11-year high with a total of more than 76,000 during the month of February alone. U.S. and Mexican officials predict hundreds of thousands more in the coming months.

The migrants use the word “asylum” as their get-in-free card. When they say it to a border agent, they gain entry to the U.S. 80 percent of the time according to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. They are temporarily housed and eventually released with an immigration court date. But half never go on to file an asylum claim, disappearing into the U.S., said former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Asylum is supposed to be reserved for people facing persecution and danger in their home country whose safety depends upon their leaving that country. People who simply want better lives are asked to go through the legal process. Unfortunately our southern border is so porous that it is very easy for people to come here illegally and then simply disappear. We need a wall. It is sad that Congress is playing political games in order to avoid building one. Congress has never wanted a secure southern border–the Democrats see future voters and the Republicans see cheap labor for the corporate sponsors. No one is looking at the security of America right now except the President and very few members of Congress.

Why Immigration Matters

Immigration with assimilation is a wonderful thing. Immigration without assimilation is a threat to the national sovereignty of the country involved. Massive immigration without assimilation will eventually change the public policies of the country involved. We are currently seeing that change in Britain.

National Review posted an article today about the case of Asia Bibi. The article was written by Douglas Murray.

The article reports:

When I wrote The Strange Death of Europe, I wanted to highlight the sheer scale of change that immigration brings. Some people might be happy with it, others unhappy: but to pretend that the change doesn’t occur, or won’t occur, or isn’t very interesting so please move along has always seemed an error to me. For instance, as I noted then, an internal document from the Ministry of Defence that leaked a few years back said that Britain would no longer be able to engage militarily in a range of foreign countries because of “domestic” factors. It takes a moment to absorb this. We’re used to wondering about how immigration changes domestic politics. But foreign policy as well?

All of this is to say that the latest news from the U.K. is both thoroughly predictable and deeply disturbing. Readers of National Review will be familiar with the case of Asia Bibi. She is the Christian woman from Pakistan who has been in prison on death row for the last eight years. Her “crime” is that a neighbor accused her of “blasphemy.”

Because it is not safe for Ms. Bibi to remain in Pakistan because of her Christian faith, she is seeking asylum in various western countries. Britain has stated that it will deny Ms. Bibi asylum.

The article reports:

But today there are reports that the British government has said that it will not offer asylum to Asia Bibi. The reason being “security concerns” — that weasel term now used by all officialdom whenever it needs one last reason to avoid doing the right thing. According to this report, the government is concerned that if the U.K. offered asylum to Bibi it could cause “unrest among certain sections of the community.” And which sections would that be? Would it be Anglicans or atheists who would be furious that an impoverished and severely traumatized woman should be given shelter in their country? Of course not. The “community” that the British government will be scared of is the community that comes from the same country that has tortured Asia Bibi for the last eight years.

The article concludes:

In any case, if it is true that the British government has declined to offer Asia Bibi asylum for this reason, then it should lead to a huge national and international outcry. Among other things, it suggests that the British government has got its priorities exactly the wrong way around. For it is not Asia Bibi who should not be in Britain. It is anyone from the “communities” who would not accept Asia Bibi being in Britain who should not be in the country. Though I wouldn’t expect any British politician to express that simple truth any time soon.

Immigration without assimilation is not a good thing for any country.

 

Things To Note…

European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers register their asylum claim in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in is the final decision in all EU countries. This is the international law on asylum seekers. Somehow a lot of the American news media has neglected to mention that. The migrant caravan currently making its way to America is from Honduras. America is not the first country they have arrived in. It should also be noted that Mexico has a vested interest in stopping this caravan–if the caravan causes America to build the wall and stop illegal immigration, the amount of money sent from America to Mexico will decrease drastically. Those are only two aspects of the problem.

Hot Air posted an article about the caravan today dealing with some of the actions the Mexican government has taken regarding the caravan.

The article reports:

If you had any doubts about the intentions of the migrants in the Honduran caravan you can put them to rest. Mexico continues to make good faith efforts to deal with the flood of humanity in a legal fashion, but the organizers of the caravan have no interest in the law. This week the Mexican government offered the travelers refuge, supplies and the opportunity for permanent residency in two southern states if they applied for asylum. While hundreds of the Hondurans took them up on the offer, thousands more took a vote and decided once again to reject the plan, insisting that they were heading to the United States.

…As we’re seeing in this story, Mexico is also trying to take on the role of a Safe Third Country Agreement participant, even though we haven’t formalized that deal with them yet. By offering the migrants asylum status and temporary food and lodging while their claims are processed, there’s no reason the vast majority of them couldn’t remain in Chiapas and Oaxaca. It represents a major drain on Mexico’s resources to make such an offer and they should be earning a lot of credit and support from the United States for doing so.

Unfortunately, as I noted at the top, most of the migrants have no interest in accepting the offer. They plan to march on the United States border uninvited. We have no more ability to process that many requests in a short period of time than Mexico does and the travelers have already demonstrated what they plan to do if their demands can’t be immediately accommodated. They jumped one border crossing over from Guatemala to Mexico and they will obviously do it again when they reach the United States.

The caravan has more than 1,000 miles to go before they reach Texas. That gives us some time to come up with a plan to stop what can only honestly be described as an invasion. But that time isn’t unlimited, so the state and federal governments need to be working together and preparing for their arrival.

This may get very ugly, and we can depend on the American media to report anything that happens as unfairly as possible. However, we need to remember that as a sovereign county we have the right and responsibility to protect our borders. We also need to remember that the federal government is charged with protecting our borders. When the sympathy stories come out about these poor people, remember that they had a legal chance to settle in Mexico, they were paid to be part of the invasion of America’s southern border, and that the majority of them are military-age young men, The caravan heading for America is a disaster on many levels,

Asking The Right Question

First of all, The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that points out that the migrant caravan is not walking to America–they are arriving on flatbed trucks.

That actually makes sense. Who is paying for the trucks and the gasoline?

That article explains:

The migrants ‘walking’ through Mexico to reach the US appears to be more of a production than reality.

It’s clearly impossible for an individual or a group to cross the southern Mexican border and then walk all the way to the northern Mexican border in a matter of a couple of days. It is simply not possible.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article that I believes sums up the problem with the immigrant caravan headed this way.

The article at The Daily Caller reports:

Things got awkward fast after Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked Univision anchor Jorge Ramos to state exactly how many caravan members HE planned to personally take in.

Ramos, an outspoken immigration advocate, spoke with Carlson remotely on Tuesday from the caravan in southern Mexico. The Fox News host’s question came after the Univision host made several comments defending its members, including insisting unequivocally that none of them were from the Middle East.

“How many of these migrants are you taking in personally into your home and are supporting once they get into the United States?” Carlson asked.

“I think that’s a great question and that’s precisely the kind of question that people like you ask when you don’t want to understand that this has nothing to do with individuals,” responded Ramos. “It has to do with nations. And what we have to understand is that these refugees are not a threat to the United States. I know that in Fox News …”

“Before you attack Fox, this is a simple question,” Carlson interrupted. “How many are you taking in?”

After a back and forth that included Ramos stating that immigrants’ desire to come is “really a love letter to the United States,” the Fox News host pressed again: “I’m asking you a very simple question – How many of these migrants are you personally taking responsibility for? How many are going home to Jorge’s place in Miami at the end of the day? And please be specific.”

“I think that again this has nothing to do with individuals. I wish I could help all of them,” responded Ramos.

The problem is that we all want to help them, but we are not able to help all of them without overwhelming ourselves. Those who are saying we need to let in these thousands of people and feed and clothe them need to remember that we have homeless Americans (many of whom are veterans) that we need to help first. I am sorry that they have been misled to make the trip north by empty promises, but notice that the countries that they passed through on their way here have not provided them with asylum (as required by international law). The only way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into America is to send them home.

In looking at the potention damage letting this caravan of people into the country could do, we need to remember the Cloward-Piven Strategy. The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. That is the promise of communism. We see how well that has worked in the past.

Sometimes You Wonder If Members Of Congress Have Ever Read The Constitution They Swore To Uphold

Yesterday The Hill posted an article about legislation proposed by Republicans to keep families together at the southern border of the United States.

The article reports:

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed a legislative proposal backed by Republican leaders to keep immigrant families together at the border, arguing that President Trump could fix the problem more easily with a flick of his pen.

“There are so many obstacles to legislation and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense,” Schumer told reporters. “Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it.”

Asked if that meant Democrats would not support a bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to keep immigrant families together while seeking asylum on the U.S. border, Schumer said they want to keep the focus on Trump. (Italics mine)

Legislation is the job of Congress. They are responsible for making laws. Not only is Senator Schumer shirking his responsibility, his statement makes it clear that he is more interested in politics than finding a solution. Senator Schumer is illustrating the difference between a politician and a businessman, and he is also illustrating the reason Donald Trump got elected. A politician ‘never lets a crisis go to waste.’ A businessman’s focus is on solving problems and moving forward.

It’s time to stop playing politics with border enforcement, secure our borders, and discourage people from trying to come to America illegally. If Senator Schumer chooses not to do his job, he should be replaced by a Senator who has read the Constitution and is willing to abide by his Oath of Office.

The West Needs To Realize That Not Everything Is A Two-Way Street

As the invasion of Europe continues, some European leaders are waking up to the threat. For anyone who does not believe that Europe is being invaded, look at the demographics of the ‘refugees’ seeking asylum there.

The following is taken from a WND article from Marcy 2016:

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about what is happening in Austria. Austria has deported more than 50,000 Islamic illegal immigrants. The article states that Austria plans to shut down seven mosques and deport 60 Turkish-funded radical imams. Turkey is outraged.

The article reports:

Turkey immediately condemned Austria’s move to close the radical mosques as ‘racist’ and anti-Islamic.

Of course, this comes just weeks after Islamist Turkey seized ALL Christian churches in city and declares them ‘state property’

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took control of six churches in the war-torn southeastern city of Diyarbakir in his latest move to squash religious freedom.

It seems to me that if Muslim countries are not willing to allow religious freedom for Christians, western countries with their roots in Christianity should not allow religious freedom for Muslims. This might slow down the attempt to take over western culture by ‘refugee’ invasion to change the demographics of western countries. If you doubt the impact on demographics, compare the birthrates of western countries to the birthrates of the Muslim immigrants settling in them. In twenty years (or sooner)  Europe will no longer be part of western civilization.

 

 

Purposely Returning A Woman To A Dangerous Situation

CBN News posted an article today about Aideen Strandsson, who is awaiting deportation from Sweden to Iran. Sweden has turned down her request for asylum. Ms. Strandsson is a Christian and would face rape and prison time if she is returned to Iran. Hungary has offered her asylum, but Sweden was not willing to let her go to Hungary.

The article reports:

Aideen Strandsson came to Sweden from Iran in 2014 on a work visa and adopted a Swedish last name. She Left Islam and became a Christian in Iran after seeing a video of Muslims stoning a woman to death and then having a dream about Jesus.

When she arrived in Sweden, she requested a public baptism.

Strandsson said, “I wanted to be baptized in public because I want to say I am free, I am Christian and I wanted everyone to know about that.”

Which means the Islamic government of Iran knows. And because she starred in films and a TV series in Iran, it makes her an even bigger target if she is sent back.

In July of last year, CBN News reported:

At the same time Sweden is deporting Christians to Muslim nations where they face prison, torture and death, it is giving new identities to ISIS fighters who have returned from Syria and Iraq.
 
An investigation by the Swedish newspaper Expressen found that 150 ISIS terrorists are being protected by the Swedish government so that locals don’t find out that they were jihadists.
Today’s CBN News article provides the information to contact the Swedish embassy about this matter. I don’t know how much good that will do, but it is worth a try.
Meanwhile, could someone please explain how allowing former ISIS members asylum and not granting Christians asylum makes sense? Which is more likely to be a threat to the peace of your country?